C string syntax incoherent ? ...

[Jose]

I come to this conclusion not because the literature I have says it but by comparing the example code on it doh.., but I'd like you to confirm.
If you assign a string constant to a character array, say
char strg[11] = "C rules!!!";  the compiler automatically assigns each character of the string constant (wich is really an array of characters too) to the array ( yeah I know, it can also be char strg[] = "C rules!!!"
Now what's confusing is that C treats the strings diferently if they're assigned to a character pointer, for example char *strg = "C rules!!!"; in this case it just assigns a pointer to the string constant.
While this is an exception I think it confuses things because one expects the syntax to be unique! The use of & and * also comes to mind, cause these can be the bitwise and or "the address of", or multiplication or "value at address" dpending on context. However in the literature I've read this is made clear, no problem at all, contrarly to strings!!
Ok enouph of my ranting, I'm just feed up with this book not being more clear about strings, it has confused me for a while :pissed:
But maybe I'm wrong all the way anyway :-?   :lol:  :-D

[Jose]

Thx, it's confirmed then. I understand it but I still think that the syntax for the char *strg = "C rules!!!" example should be coherent with the rest of the C syntax: char *strg = &"C rules!!!". Maybe I'm just nitpicking but still...

[Jose]

Thinking better about it I think I just missed out to remember that the array's name without indexing is the address of the first element. If "" is really just a pointer to the first element too ( as the string defenition itself is an array of characters terminated by a null) then by using char *strg = "C rules!!!"; one is assigning a pointer's value to another, & is not necessary like you say.
The other case, char strg[11] = "C rules!!!"; is really where my confusion came from. Since this is indexed I thought it wasn't the same as strg alone (wich is the address of the first element), but it probably works the same cause this is the declaration of the array (not indexing the array to access an element)...
Just forget it... :-)

[Jose]

@Fats

Yes! That was it :-)